DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2023was filed after the mailing date of the filing date of the claimed application on 05/16/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “gain element comprises a plurality of structures spaced apart in a direction of an extension of a layer of the gain element and wherein a size of the structures of the plurality of
structures and/or a distance between adjacent structures is smaller than the laser wavelength.” As recited in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 15 reads “wherein substrate is a wafer having a width of at least 200 mm.” Examiner respectfully believed the claim is supposed to read “wherein the substrate is a wafer having a width of at least 200 mm”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, this claim requires “a second spacer element”. When using ordinal designations, it is necessary to start with an initial ordinal designation such as "first" and introduce further elements in numerical order from that point. Failure to adhere to such an ordering creates the implication of additional elements without strictly indicating the presence thereof. Due to this implication, it is unclear whether or not the claim actually requires the presence of the implied features. As such, this claim is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as requiring no elements other than those explicitly stated.
Examiner notes that claim 4 does include the limitation of “a first spacer element” but claim 6 does not have any dependency to claim 4 and therefore in the order of which the dependent claims are branched, claim 6 introduces the limitation of “a second spacer element” without previously introducing “a first spacer element”.
Regarding claim 13, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “wherein the array of light emitting units has a pitch of light emitting units of less than 1000µm” , and the claim also recites “preferably less than 100µm and most preferably less than 60µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purposes of examination of the instant application, the interpretation of claim 13 is understood to be “wherein the array of light emitting units has a pitch of light emitting units of less than 1000µm” as shown in the prior art rejection of claim 13 below.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2,5,9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qiao et al. (hereinafter Qiao) (US 20210167580 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Qiao discloses in Fig. 1,
A light emitting unit [10] (Para. 0038]) for emitting laser light at a laser wavelength (Para. [0038]), the light emitting unit [10] being arranged on a planar surface of a substrate [12] (Para. [0038]), wherein the light emitting unit [10] comprises:
a first reflective element [20] (Para. [0038]) configured to reflect light at the laser wavelength (Para. [0038]);
a gain element [22] (Para. [0038]) configured to amplify the light at the laser wavelength (Para. [0038]);
a second reflective element [26] (Para. [0038]) configured to partially reflect the light at the laser wavelength (Para. [0038]) (see light [30] emitting through upper surface Para. [0040]) and to emit the laser light [emits light 30] (Para. [0040]);
wherein the first reflective element [20], the gain element [22], and the second
reflective element [26] form a stack of layers [14] (Para. [0038]) integrated onto the planar surface of the substrate [12] (Para. [0038]), wherein each layer in the stack of layers [14] is parallel with the planar surface [top of 12] (see Fig. 1),
and wherein the gain element [22] is arranged between the first reflective element [20] and the second reflective element [26] (para. [0038]),
wherein the light emitting unit further comprises a beam shaping element [34] (Paras. [0040,0088,0089]) integrated with the stack of layers [14] on the substrate [12] (Para. [0040]), the beam shaping element [34] being configured to shape the laser light being emitted (Para. [0087]), wherein at least a part of the beam shaping element [34] is a separate element to the first reflective element [20] (Para. [0040]), the gain element [22] and the second reflective element [26] (Para. [0040]) or forms part of one or more of the first reflective element, the gain element and the second reflective element; and
wherein the beam shaping element [34] comprises a plurality of structures spaced apart in a direction of an extension of a layer of the beam shaping element [left and right direction Fig. 1] (see Figs. 7A-7C) (Para. [0068]) and wherein a size of the structures of the plurality of structures and/or a distance between adjacent structures [period Fig. 7C] (Para. [0068]) is smaller than the laser wavelength (subwavelength gratings Para. [0068]).
Examiner notes the interpretation of “wherein at least a part of the beam shaping element is a separate element to the first reflective element, the gain element and the second reflective element or forms part of one or more of the first reflective element, the gain element and the second reflective element” for the purposes of examination in the instant application is understood to be “wherein at least a part of the beam shaping element is a separate element to the first reflective element, the gain element and the second reflective element” and,
the interpretation of “wherein a size of the structures of the plurality of structures and/or a distance between adjacent structures is smaller than the laser wavelength.” for the purposes of examination in the instant application is understood to be “wherein a distance between adjacent structures is smaller than the laser wavelength”
Regarding claim 2, Qiao discloses the device outline din the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Qiao Fig. 1,
wherein the second reflective element [26] (Para. [0039]) comprises a plurality of structures spaced apart in a direction of an extension of a layer of the second reflective element [26] (see Fig. 7C) (Para. [0068]) and wherein a size of the structures of the plurality of structures and/or a distance between adjacent structures is smaller than the laser wavelength (see Fig. 7C, subwavelength period) (Para. [0068]).
Examiner notes that paragraph [0039] of Qiao discloses that the upper reflector can use an HCG layer fully in place of the DBR.
Regarding claim 5, Qiao discloses the device outline din the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Qiao Fig. 1,
wherein the beam shaping element [34] (Para. [0040]) is a separate element (Para. [0040]) and wherein the beam shaping element [34] and the gain element [22] are arranged on opposite sides of the second reflective element [26] (Para. [0038]) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Qiao discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Qiao,
further comprising a first electrode [16] (Para. [0038]) and a second electrode [28] (Para. [0038]) integrated with the stack of layers [14] on the substrate [12], wherein the first electrode [16] and the second electrode [28] are arranged on opposite sides of the gain element [22] (Para. [0038]) in the stack of layers [14], and wherein the first electrode [16] and the second electrode [28] (Para. [0038]) are configured to generate a population inversion in the gain element [22] (Para. [0038]).
Examiner notes the interpretation of the term “integrated” for the purposes of examination of claim 9 in the instant application is understood to be “to incorporate into a larger unit” as defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary (see PTO-892 form).
Regarding claim 11, Qiao discloses the device outline din the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Qiao Fig. 1,
wherein the first reflective element [20] (Para. [0038]), the gain element [22] (Para. [0038]), and the second reflective element [26] (Para. [0038]) respectively, are arranged along an optical axis [middle of stack 14] (Para. [0038])such that a center of the first reflective element [20], the gain element [22], and the second reflective element [26] (Para. [0038])respectively, does not deviate from the optical axis by more than 100 nm (see Fig. 1), and wherein the optical axis extends in a direction [extends vertically] (Para. [0040]) perpendicular to the planar surface of the substrate [12] (Para. [0040]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Kiyota et al. (hereinafter Kiyota) (US 20080273832 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Qiao discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the gain element comprises a plurality of structures spaced apart in a direction of an extension of a layer of the gain element and wherein a size of the structures of the plurality of structures and/or a distance between adjacent structures is smaller than the laser wavelength.
Kiyota discloses in Fig. 3,
a gain element [112] (Para. [0039]) comprising a plurality of structures [structures between 108b] (Para. [0040]) spaced apart in a direction [left and right Fig. 3] (Para. [0037]) of an extension of a layer of the gain element [112] and wherein a size of the structure of the plurality of structures is smaller than a laser wavelength (Para. [0039])
Para. [0039] of Kiyota discloses an emission wavelength to be 1550 nm and a thickness of the active layer to be 505 nm. Therefore, smaller than the laser wavelength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the periodic active structure of Kiyota with the gain element of Qiao for the purpose of improved efficiency of optical connection. (Kiyota Para. [0045])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Hori et al. (hereinafter Hori) (US 20070036189 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Qiao discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
further comprising a first spacer element arranged between the gain element and the second reflective element, the first spacer element being configured to provide a desired distance between the first reflective element and the second reflective element.
Hori discloses in Fig. 1,
a first spacer element [1030] (Para. [0041]) arranged between a gain element [1040] (Para. [0041]) and a second reflective element [1000] (Para. [0041]), the first spacer element [1030] (Para. [0041]) being configured to provide a desired distance between a first reflective element [1060] (Para. [0041]) and the second reflective element [1000] (Paras. [0041,0119])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a first spacer element above the gain element of Qiao for the purpose of adjusting the total thickness of the device. (Hori Para. [0119])
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Ghosh et al. (hereinafter Ghosh) (US 20210194212 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Qiao discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above but fails to disclose,
further comprising a second spacer element arranged between the second reflective element and the beam shaping element, the second spacer element being configured to provide a desired distance therebetween.
Ghosh discloses in Fig. 3,
a second spacer element [30] (Para. 0024]) arranged between a second reflective element [32] (Para. [0024]) and a beam shaping element [26] (Para. 0024]), the second spacer element [30] being configured to provide a desired distance therebetween (Para. 0022])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a spacer between the second reflective element and the beam shaping element of Qiao as shown in Ghosh for the purpose of adjusting the cavity size to match a phase of the wave condition for lasing operation. (Ghosh Para. [0022])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Walker et a. (hereinafter Walker) (US 6445495 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Qiao discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
a tunable element integrated with the stack of layers on the substrate, the tunable element being configured to provide tunability to the laser light.
Walker discloses in Fig. 3A,
a tunable element [312] (Col. 5, lines 16-28) integrated with a stack of layers [302] (Col.4 , lines 23-27) on a substrate (Col. 4, lines 53-57), the tunable element being configured to provide tunability to a laser light (Col. 5, lines 16-28)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the tunable element of Walker into the stack of layers of Qiao for the purpose of tuning the value of the constant gain multiplier. (Walker Col. 5, lines 16-22)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Clark et al. (hereinafter Clark) (US 20190157834 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Qiao discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the substrate comprises Germanium.
Clark discloses in Fig. 1,
a substrate [102] comprising Germanium (Para. [0022])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Germanium substrate of Clark as the substrate of Qiao for the purpose of having improved mechanical strength. (Clark Para. [0022])
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Schubert et al. (hereinafter Schubert) (US 9843160 B1), and further in view of Trezza (US 20060281309 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Qiao discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 9 above fails to disclose,
further comprising a first contact and a second contact, the first contact and the second contact extending through at least some of the layers in the stack, and being connected to the first electrode and the second electrode, respectively, wherein the first contact and the second contact 29enable electric control of the light emitting unit, and wherein at least one of the first contact and the second contact has a cross-sectional width of less than 1 pm.
Schubert discloses,
a first contact [Schubert 162 Fig. 1A] (Schubert Col. 3, line 61- Col. 4, line 8) and a second contact [Schubert 161 Fig. 1A] (Schubert Col. 3, line 61- Col. 4, line 8), being connected to the first electrode [Schubert 172 Fig. 1A] (Schubert Col. 3, line 61- Col. 4, line 8) and the second electrode [Schubert 170 Fig. 1A] (Schubert Col. 3, line 61- Col. 4, line 8), respectively, the second contact [Schubert 161 Fig. 1A] (Schubert Col. 3, line 61- Col. 4, line 8) extending through at least some of the layers [Shubert 120 Fig. 1A] (Schubert Col. 3, line 61- Col. 4, line 8) in the stack
wherein the first contact [Schubert 162 Fig. 1A] (Schubert Col. 3, line 61- Col. 4, line 8) and the second contact [Schubert 161 Fig. 1A] enable electric control of the light emitting unit (Schubert Col. 3, line 61- Col. 4, line 8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the integrated electrode structure and contact structure shown in Schubert around the gain element of Qiao for the purpose of allowing electrical connection to the electrode through intervening layers. (Schubert Col. 3, line 64-Col. 4, line 8)
Qiao in view of Schubert fails to disclose,
the first contact and the second contact extending through at least some of the layers in the stack
and wherein at least one of the first contact and the second contact has a cross-sectional width of less than 1 µm.
Trezza discloses in Fig. 28A,
a first contact [2802] (Para. [0188]) extending through at least a layer [122] (Para. [0138])
wherein the first contact [2802] (Para. [0188]) has a cross sectional width of less than 1µm (Para. [0296])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to implement the through via structure of Trezza in the modified device of Qiao for the purpose electrically connecting to an element through the layers in a highly controlled and precise manner. (Trezza Para. [0190])
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu) (US 7164702 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Qiao discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Qiao,
A light emitting device [70 Fig. 2B] (Para. [0045]) comprising:
a substrate [60] comprising a planar surface (Para. [0045]);
an array of light emitting units [10] (Para. [0045]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
Qiao fails to disclose,
the array of light emitting units being arranged on the planar surface of the substrate.
Liu discloses in Fig. 4,
an array [410] (Col. 4, lines 29 and 30) of light emitting units (Col. 4, lines 29 and 30) being arranged on a planar surface of a substrate [412] (Col. 4, lines 31-34) at a pitch of 125µm (Col. 5, lines 19 and 20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the array structure on a common substrate at the pitch described in Joseph with the devices of Qiao for the purpose of allowing flip chip bonding on a common substrate with high yield. (Col. 5, lines 36-49)
Regarding claim 13, Qiao in view of Liu as applied to claim 12 above further discloses in Liu,
wherein the array of light emitting units has a pitch of light emitting units of less than 1000 µm (Liu Col. 5, lines 19 and 20), preferably less than 100 µm, and most preferably less than 60 µm.
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 13 is understood to be “wherein the array of light emitting units has a pitch of light emitting units of less than 1000 µm” as noted in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 13 above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Pissis et al. (hereinafter Pissis) (US 20220158417 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Qiao discloses in Fig. 1,
A method for manufacturing a light emitting unit [10] (Para. 0038]) on a substrate [12] (Para. [0038]) comprising a planar surface (see Fig. 1), the light emitting unit [10] being configured for emitting laser light at a laser wavelength (Para. [0038]), the method comprising:
forming a first reflective element [20] (Para. [0038]) configured to reflect light at the laser wavelength (Para. [0038]);
forming a gain element [22] (Para. [0038]) by epitaxial deposition on the first reflective element [20] (Paras. [0038,0042]);
forming a second reflective element [26] (Para. [0038]) configured to emit the laser light [emits light 30] (Para. [0040]);
wherein the first reflective element [20], the gain element [22], and the second
reflective element [26] form a stack of layers [14] (Para. [0038]) integrated onto the planar surface of the substrate [12] (Para. [0038]), wherein each layer in the stack of layers [14] is parallel with the planar surface [top of 12] (see Fig. 1),
and wherein the gain element [22] is formed to be arranged between the first reflective element [20] and the second reflective element [26] (para. [0038]),
wherein the forming of the light emitting unit further comprises
forming a beam shaping element [34] (Paras. [0040,0088,0089]) integrated with the stack of layers [14] on the substrate [12] (Para. [0040]), the beam shaping element [34] being configured to shape the laser light being emitted (Para. [0087]), wherein at least a part of the beam shaping element [34] is a separate element to the first reflective element [20] (Para. [0040]), the gain element [22] and the second reflective element [26] (Para. [0040]) or forms part of one or more of the first reflective element, the gain element and the second reflective element; and
wherein the forming of the beam shaping element [34] involved forming a plurality of structures spaced apart in a direction of an extension of a layer of the beam shaping element [left and right direction Fig. 1] (see Figs. 7A-7C) (Para. [0068]) and wherein a size of the structures of the plurality of structures and/or a distance between adjacent structures [period Fig. 7C] (Para. [0068]) is smaller than the laser wavelength (subwavelength gratings Para. [0068]).
Qiao fails to disclose,
wherein the forming of the beam shaping element involves lithography
Pissis discloses in Fig. 4,
forming a grating feature using lithography [block 220 Fig. 4] (Para. [0101])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the use of a lithographic process shown discloses in Pissis for the formation of the grating of Qiao for the purpose of allowing selective etching to a desired filling factor. (Pissis Para. [0101])
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Pissis as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of McLaurin (US 12191626 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Qiao in view of Pissis discloses the method outlined in the rejection of claim 14 above but fails to disclose,
wherein substrate is a wafer having a width of at least 200 mm.
McLaurin discloses,
a wafer of a diameter of 200mm (Col. 19, lines 42-53)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the larger wafer size of McLaurin in the method of Qiao and Pissis for the purpose of increasing the effective area of the device wafer and volume of manufacturing. (McLaurin Col. 19, lines 42-53)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner particularly notes (US 20210135429 A1) which discloses the use of an emission surface grating in a device comprising spacer elements.
Further, (US 20070201528 A1) discloses a device with two DBRs separated by a gain region with a beam shaping element on the emission surface of the top DBR. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828